Quote :

"Palin rejects nearly 30 percent of stimulus funds Lifestyles_Momshells By ANNE SUTTON Associated Press Writer Posted: Mar. 19 8:16 p.m. Updated: Today at 7:31 a.m. JUNEAU, Alaska — It's up to the Alaska Legislature to request hundreds of millions of dollars in federal stimulus funds from the federal government. Gov. Sarah Palin said Thursday that she would accept only 69 percent of the estimated $930 million dollars that could flow to the state, including $514 million for capital projects and $128 million for a hike in Medicaid reimbursement. Palin said she would accept money that is "timely, targeted and temporary" and does not create strings that will bind the state in the future. "I can't attest to every fund that's being offered the state in the stimulus package will be used to create jobs and stimulate the economy, so I'm requesting only those things that I know will," Palin said at a news conference at the Capitol. "Public discussion will have to ensue on all those other dollars that some will say 'you left on the table.'" Some other Republican governors have also announced reservations about accepting the federal money, particularly when it comes to expanding jobless benefits. Texas Gov. Rick Perry last week announced that he turned down $555 million of federal stimulus funding that would expand the state's unemployment benefits. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has said he would not accept nearly $100 million to expand unemployment benefits. And South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has said he only wants to use the federal money to pay down debt. Other Republican governors including Charlie Crist of Florida and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California have welcomed the stimulus bounty. Palin's rejection of $160 million for education drew a rebuke from Anchorage Superintendent of Schools Carol Comeau, who said she was shocked and disappointed. "We believe that we can make very good use of the funds, not only in job preservation but also in adding new positions to ultimately use these funds to increase student achievement for our neediest children," she said in a news release. Comeau pointed to money that would have gone into training for special education teachers and additional programs and support for needy preschool children. The governor has until April 3 to formally request funds from the stimulus package. It's unclear if legislatures are under the same deadline but Alaska lawmakers likely will stick to the same date to be safe. Overall, Palin rejected almost $288 million and many, such as Senate Finance Committee Co-Chairman Bert Stedman, were surprised. "I think the Legislature will take a good hard look at the impact on Alaska," said Stedman, a Republican. "The governor might have a broader view." With so little time left before the April 3 deadline, Stedman expects the Legislature will ask for the full amount, and if they determine later that it would have adverse long-term impacts on the state, to decline it then. Alaska has been somewhat cushioned from the effects of the global recession, but the state faces a $2.6 billion deficit over this year and next from low oil prices and declining oil production on the North Slope. Oil makes up about 90 percent of state revenues. Sen. Hollis French, a Democrat, said the governor was breaking with a long tradition in Alaska. "The state has made its business to get as many federal dollars as possible to help us create an infrastructure and build our state," he said. "I just really think the governor made a mistake here." Palin on Thursday sent a spending bill to the Legislature laying out funding for capital projects that she is willing to accept, on top of the $262 million transportation stimulus spending bill that is already under debate. The additional money Palin said she would accept includes $116 million for a University of Alaska Fairbanks research vessel, $68 million for water and sewer projects, $39 million for public housing projects and $21 million for education and job training. Palin did not request funding for energy efficiency and conservation block grants, an expansion of unemployment insurance eligibility, weatherization money, employment services, among others. The five-member conservative Republican minority in the Senate supported the governor's decision. Sen. Con Bunde, a Republican, compared the package to having too much to drink. "A good time may be had by all, but the hangover the next day, and the consequences of what you did while you were drunk, may be with you for a long, long time," Bunde said. Palin said she was acting in the best interests of Alaskans but Democratic Rep. Les Gara questioned the motives of the former Republican vice presidential candidate. "I read it that she's going to be running for national office and has a campaign position that unfortunately conflicts with the state's interests," he said."

3/20/2009 9:13:58 AM

Quote :

"Palin's rejection of $160 million for education drew a rebuke from Anchorage Superintendent of Schools Carol Comeau, who said she was shocked and disappointed. "We believe that we can make very good use of the funds, not only in job preservation but also in adding new positions to ultimately use these funds to increase student achievement for our neediest children," she said in a news release. Comeau pointed to money that would have gone into training for special education teachers and additional programs and support for needy preschool children."

Seems a bit ironic.

3/20/2009 9:20:39 AM

^ for real.

seems like a thinly veiled political stunt. which means she thinks she has a chance...which is humorous.

3/20/2009 9:29:52 AM

I don't get all these gov's refusing to take additional Unemployment benefits.

I'm sure the 100's of thousands of unemployed people in your states will really appreciate your "stand" on the issue!

and the Sanford claiming he's only going to pay down debt with his money? Nice one, dipshit. Refuse to take money for anything that will, i don't know, directly help your state's citizens and just pay off some bills instead.

3/20/2009 9:32:57 AM

I was under the impression that Alaska has not been hit hard at all compared to the majority of the country and they have plenty in reserves to get by for a couple of years... so why would they need to take the money, just because Congress is giving it away to everybody? Hate on her for other things if you want but I don't see why this is a bad thing.

Sanford, on the other hand, is obviously making a political move, because his state is desperate for the money, and will get it regardless of what he wants to do.

3/20/2009 9:56:34 AM

Why is "only" taking 70% of the stimulus a noble gesture?

3/20/2009 9:59:06 AM

They would "need" to take the money because they'll be paying for it for generations to come.

Kinda like the $8000 tax credit...I don't necessarily agree with it, but you can bet that when I get home and buy a house, I'll take that money straight to the bank. I'm gonna be footing the bill for it anyway, so I might as well get what I can out of it.

3/20/2009 10:01:42 AM

It's sad...politicians scattering our money along the ground...leading us to the voting booth.

3/20/2009 10:52:03 AM

3/20/2009 10:57:19 AM

They should do what is in the best interest of their state's citizens. If it is free money then take it. If, however, the money has strings attached which would harm the state in the long run then leave it. As such, rejecting 30% of the stimulus money seems reasonable.

3/20/2009 1:45:19 PM

i thought this was gonna be about the Mayan calendar apocalypse thing. wasn't surprised when i opened the thread and saw Palin

3/20/2009 2:03:00 PM

Quote :

"Why is "only" taking 70% of the stimulus a noble gesture?"

B/c, as stated, that was the amount of the money they could take without strings. Its noble (and a good thing) to refuse help from the federal government and try to run your state more independently, one of the ideas this country was founded on.

And who wants to be the Fed govt's bitch as a result of taking/borrowing certain funds.

3/20/2009 2:10:12 PM

I think everyone would agree that State's should be as independent as possible.

However, many, many states are in dire straits right now, though, and most of them don't have the luxury (or crutch, if that's how you look at it) of deficit spending, based on their State Laws. Unlike the Fed gov't, which can borrow and raise as much cash as they need (again, admittedly, often to their own detriment), if a State cannot balance their books yearly, even in the worst of economic times, then the state gov't can literally shut down. If a state or governor wants to take a political stand during a normal year and refuse some kind of money coming from the Feds, that's fine. But in a time such as now, it is irresponsible of these governors to refuse money that could help their own citizens out very, very much.

3/20/2009 2:21:07 PM

But, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought Alaska was not one of those states

3/20/2009 2:23:03 PM

don't know.
but I heard someone yesterday that said Alaska is starting to feel the pinch along with the rest of the states because of the sudden and sharp decline in oil revenue

3/20/2009 2:26:37 PM

Quote :

"The state has socked away $1 billion in an education fund for the next school year and education officials say another $1 billion is expected go into the fund this year for future use. More billions went into state savings as well, Palin said. "We're more prepared than other states because of the prudence there," Palin said recently. "We crossed that first hurdle." The state currently has $6.6 billion in its constitutional budget reserve fund that it could tap into. A few billion dollars more also is available from other pockets, said Juneau economist Gregg Erickson, a longtime Alaska budget watcher. Given Alaska's robust reserves, the state is well-prepared to weather the next two years, Erickson said. As to how long reserves will last after that, there are too many factors involved to say for sure. "

here's the article I remember reading it in - http://www.examiner.com/a-1855707~Fallen_oil_prices_a_chink_in_Sarah_Palin_s_armor.html

3/20/2009 3:00:36 PM

Quote :

"And who wants to be the Fed govt's bitch as a result of taking/borrowing certain funds. "

every state who takes highway funds, education funds, etc. That's how they work around the 10th Amendment when they aren't in the mood to just flat out ignore it.

Quote :

"I think everyone would agree that State's should be as independent as possible."

I think it's pretty apparent that plenty of people disagree.

3/20/2009 3:55:46 PM

marko with the perpetual win

3/20/2009 4:10:50 PM

I promise all the republican partisan hacks that unless Obama really screws up or gets involved in some really bad scandal (like he cheats on his wife); I guarantee you are getting Obama for 4 more years if you put Palin on the ticket for 2012.

3/20/2009 5:51:54 PM

Quote :

"B/c, as stated, that was the amount of the money they could take without strings. Its noble (and a good thing) to refuse help from the federal government and try to run your state more independently, one of the ideas this country was founded on. And who wants to be the Fed govt's bitch as a result of taking/borrowing certain funds. 3/20/2009 2:10:12 PM"

It seems though that people are spinning this as "no we won't help the government waste more money" not "look, we'll run ourselves the way we want, it's not about the money, it's about states' rights." The former doesn't make any sense.

3/20/2009 5:59:36 PM

Quote :

"I promise all the republican partisan hacks that unless Obama really screws up or gets involved in some really bad scandal (like he cheats on his wife); I guarantee you are getting Obama for 4 more years if you put Palin on the ticket for 2012. "

fyp

3/20/2009 6:41:30 PM

i dunno

current attention spans and patience are running so short they might just change posa rotation to 2 years

3/20/2009 6:53:51 PM

Quote :

"I promise all the republican partisan hacks that unless Obama really screws up or gets involved in some really bad scandal (like he cheats on his wife); I guarantee you are getting Obama for 4 more years if you put Palin on the ticket for 2012."

Maybe I don't listen to enough republican partisan hacks, but the only people I ever here talking about "Palin '12" are Democrats.

3/20/2009 7:12:09 PM

ROMNEY '12

3/20/2009 7:12:53 PM

if the government is going to spend the money anyways, why not just go ahead and take it. she should decide on "noble" ways to spend the money

just because the federal government is "wasting" the money doesn't mean the state has to waste it

3/20/2009 7:24:17 PM

Quote :

"ACCEPT ONLY 69"

3/20/2009 7:50:45 PM

Quote :

"but the only people I ever here talking about "Palin '12" are Democrats."

she's jockeying with current Republican heart-throb Bobby Jindal over this stimulus money. obviously she thinks she'll be involved in 2012 in some fashion...

but yeah, many democrats are salivating over the idea of having her run. she seems kinda howard deanish to me. good at firing up the base, but completely unelectable (at the moment...perhaps some top notch handlers can clean her up a bit over the next couple years)

3/20/2009 8:29:09 PM

she needs the full stimulus for her bridges to nowhere, her 500k wardrobe, and to pay to fly her kids around with her.

3/20/2009 8:39:33 PM

i dont understand why people think romney as vp would have made a big difference last november...like the american public could stomach a candidate thats mormon and worth 150 million

3/20/2009 8:43:04 PM

because at least Romney had common sense, being govenor of MA, and managing a multi-billion dollor company is better credentials than flicking rocks at russia from your backyard in Alaska.

3/20/2009 8:50:54 PM

I thought I heard he got a bailout?

3/20/2009 9:08:35 PM

i dont know of any republicans who want palin anywhere near the 2012 ticket

she wont be, so stop this stupid speculation .. its not hard to see she is a losing ticket .. if you can see that, nathan, then you know the RNC is aware too

3/22/2009 4:55:06 PM

may be true of the RNC but at least in the general population during election season i saw just as many

Palin 08' or Palin (bolded on top) McCain (below) 08

stickers as I saw McCain + Palin 08'

3/22/2009 7:20:11 PM

The RNC will lose again unless they actually take real steps towards actual fiscal conservatism. Moreover, unless they can start being partisan w/o apology and speak truth to political correctness then they are doomed to fail. There is no middle road that leads anywhere positive. McCain is the case and point. Palin, while a poor choice, was not half as pathetic as McCain who was incapable of making simple points against Obama for fear of offending the mythical swing voter.


[Edited on March 22, 2009 at 8:38 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2009 8:36:04 PM

Quote :

"take real steps towards actual fiscal conservatism. "

I'd vote for a GOP candidate if...

-he proved his fiscal conservativeness through action not in speeches
- Not a champion of the evangelical right
- was willing to compromise and not play partisan hack across the aisle
- lastly was not tied to oil or halliburton interests


I do not usually agree with all the political correctness, social welfare supporting, and hippy environmentalists policies of the democratic party but these faults usually do not weigh down on me as much as the faults of the policies and absurdities that vomit out of the GOP.

[Edited on March 22, 2009 at 9:42 PM. Reason : l]

3/22/2009 9:40:12 PM

Quote :

"I think everyone would agree that State's should be as independent as possible. "

Seems like we had this argument already in our nation's history...a couple of times

Quote :

"The RNC will lose again unless they actually take real steps towards actual fiscal conservatism. Moreover, unless they can start being partisan w/o apology and speak truth to political correctness then they are doomed to fail. There is no middle road that leads anywhere positive. McCain is the case and point. Palin, while a poor choice, was not half as pathetic as McCain who was incapable of making simple points against Obama for fear of offending the mythical swing voter."

What are you basing this assessment on?

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN05201854

Generally, the major reasons cited as reasons why McCain failed were his connections to an unpopular president and, to put it simply, labels he could not escape without putting much more distance between himself and the bush presidency.

Most polls say that, while conservatives liked Palin, moderates, who make up a much larger portion of the electorate, were turned off by her.

And what points could he not make against Obama? He plugged away at the Bill Ayers thing and in the last month plugged away at the "socialist" label, what could he have used worse than connecting him personally to a terrorist or bringing up a term that most see as scary and un-american?

I'm intrigued now. I haven't really followed party politics since the election so I'm not sure what the consensus is out there. Why do you people who consider yourselves "the conservative base" think McCain lost and what is that based on? This is me being genuinely curious here.

Quote :

"I'd vote for a GOP candidate if... -he proved his fiscal conservativeness through action not in speeches - Not a champion of the evangelical right - was willing to compromise and not play partisan hack across the aisle - lastly was not tied to oil or halliburton interests I do not usually agree with all the political correctness, social welfare supporting, and hippy environmentalists policies of the democratic party but these faults usually do not weigh down on me as much as the faults of the policies and absurdities that vomit out of the GOP."

What do you consider "hippy environmentalist policies"?

I'd support someone who while not "fiscally conservative" ala "will slash funding for the sake of slashing funding to starve the beast", I do support fiscal responsibility and a general limitation of the federal government when possible without leaving us vulnerable or weakening our economy (so I'd support lower taxes but not silliness like abolition of the FDA).

The problem I think is that the people who are left participating over the dialogue on the future of the GOP are one of two groups:

-the conservative base (ala people who liked Palin, talk radio, the House GOP, think David Brooks, David Frum, Mike Gerson, maybe even George Will are pointy headed idiots, etc)
-the ron paul people

So really I don't have much hope for the national GOP right now.

[Edited on March 22, 2009 at 10:01 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2009 9:54:22 PM

This would be a good place for this:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/friday-line-ten-republicans-to-1.html?wprss=thefix

Quote :

"5. Sarah Palin: The Alaska governor drops from the top spot in the latest Line after the press debacle that followed what should have been a great story for her: that she was coming to Washington to headline a House-Senate fundraising dinner. The episode suggested a disconnect between her growing political operation in Washington and her official office in Anchorage that needs to be fixed and fixed quickly. (Previous ranking: 1) 4. Mark Sanford: The back and forth between national Democrats, who funded an ad attacking the South Carolina governor for rejecting some of the stimulus money, has nothing but upside for Sanford. It elevates him in the eyes of Republican primary voters and reaffirms Sanford as the unapologetic voice of true fiscal conservatives. Of Sanford, one senior Republican source said: "He's becoming an establishment [Texas Rep.] Ron Paul who may end up being exactly right on the economy." (Previous ranking: 9) 3. Newt Gingrich: Without an obvious party leader, a number of smart strategists believe Republicans will have to coalesce around a series of ideas on which the eventual presidential nominee will run in 2012. There is no better "ideas guy" in the GOP than the former Speaker of the House. Gingrich is largely staying out of the public eye but is advising a number of candidates and campaigns on issues and how to best talk about them. (Previous ranking: 9) 2. Haley Barbour: The governor of Mississippi is the biggest -- and most influential -- behind the scenes player in the party. Barbour will not only deliver the Republican response tomorrow to President Obama's weekly address but also is poised to chair the Republican Governors Association in 2010 when 36 governors races present an opportunity for the GOP to begin their long climb back to majority status. (Previous ranking: 4) 1. Mitt Romney: No one is doing more -- publicly and privately -- to claim control of the Republican party than Romney. Witness the nearly $600,000 he has raised through his Free and Strong America PAC so far in 2009 and his regular television turns including an appearance on "Larry King Live" last night in which Romney insisted that Obama is "not experienced in the matters that we're dealing with right now." The more ascendant the economy is as an issue, the more people within the GOP will turn to Romney as their most credible national voice. (Previous ranking: 2)"

So basically the GOP has:

5. Palin, who we know
4. A guy whose state is approaching Michigan levels of despair and who lets ideology override pragmatic policy (what is his plan for those who lose unemployment benefits? to hope cash-strapped wealthy and middle class people sacrifice more voluntarily?).
3. Newt Gingrich? What? Will people really want 1995 back?
2. A man who has ties to the Conservative Citizens Council (formerly the White Citizen's Council)
1. Mittens

Actually, I guess Mitt looks pretty good, eh?

If I could recommend anyone to be new and innovative without whipping up partisanship, it would be Huntsman or maybe even Crist if he can pull Florida out.

[Edited on March 22, 2009 at 10:15 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2009 10:12:49 PM

The fact is a lot of the republican "conservative base" is so ignorant of the workings of politics, so impressionable about what their fearless leaders aka Rush Limbaugh inform them on the way to think, and so wrapped up in Partisanship; that if the reincarnation of Jesus Christ himself was running but on the -D ticket they would vote against him.

Quote :

"Why do you people who consider yourselves "the conservative base" think McCain lost and what is that based on?"

They will say as an excuse (kinda like how UNC blames their loss to FSU solely b.c Ty Lawson sat out since his big tow hurt, irregardless to the fact that earlier in the season that won only by 3 pts to them) that McCain was not conservative enough and that the GOP needs to move back to its Conservative (Social) roots. I find this ridiculous as it is not like the christian righties or neo-cons would have voted Obama in protest of McCain as the GOP representative. Also, Palin was their conservative hero and McCain himself could have fooled me as a Conservative of the Bush flavor had I not followed McCain's politics in the past.

[Edited on March 22, 2009 at 10:40 PM. Reason : k]

3/22/2009 10:34:40 PM

if mittens runs as a third party candidate, i will not only vote for him, i would probably do everything i could to volunteer/work for his campaign

but he has to be a true independent

none of this independent/libertarian bullshit that most of you republicans are trying to pull these days

3/23/2009 12:05:10 AM

The GOP needs to go into divorce court.

The two factions need to split up, because they're making life miserable for everyone on the conservative side.

The big gov't, altruism, uber-religious, mixed economy repubs should move out, get a nice little apartment somewhere and a hot-plate.

The fiscally savvy, anti welfare state, separation of church and state as well as economy and state repubs should get to keep the house and kids.

3/23/2009 12:29:42 AM

Quote :

"if mittens runs as a third party candidate, i will not only vote for him, i would probably do everything i could to volunteer/work for his campaign"

Really? The guy who, when queried, said we should not only keep Guantanamo Bay, but double it?

Really?

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8mwv1bJthk

[Edited on March 23, 2009 at 12:37 AM. Reason : Seriously.]

3/23/2009 12:34:18 AM

the day there's a politician who i agree with 100% of the things he says, it'll be my name on the bumper sticker

[Edited on March 23, 2009 at 12:59 AM. Reason : WOOD/FOOT 2012]

3/23/2009 12:58:16 AM

Uh, yeah, okay. That just seems like a pretty big bone of contention.

But hey, who needs civil liberties? It's not like we were using them anyways.

3/23/2009 1:07:21 AM

yes, thats exactly what i believe

thank you for reminding me why i hate our binary system

where clearly if someone i like says something, i clearly have to hold that same belief

aren't we lucky to have these rigid partisan frameworks we get to live inside! its so much easier than thinking

and no, there's no way whatsoever he said that specifically to get some cred with the people who do believe that about gitmo

nope, no way whatsoever

OR MAYBE THATS SPECIFICALLY WHY I SAID INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE MITT ROMNEY

good grief the soap box is a combination of brain-shattering inanity and gut-busting hilarity

3/23/2009 1:11:11 AM

Quote :

"The GOP needs to go into divorce court. The two factions need to split up, because they're making life miserable for everyone on the conservative side. The big gov't, altruism, uber-religious, mixed economy repubs should move out, get a nice little apartment somewhere and a hot-plate. The fiscally savvy, anti welfare state, separation of church and state as well as economy and state repubs should get to keep the house and kids."

too bad there's no objectivist party. then again, that would involve throwing adam smith in the garbage since his system quite clearly mentioned that self-interested individuals acting against the good of the public and rather in their self-interest have no place in his vision of the free market that all this "capitalism" stuff comes from. but hey, you want to ditch the common, western philosophical vision of altruism in favor of ayn rand's masturbatory fantasies, go ahead.

this huntsman guy intrigues me, but i have a feeling he's the next mittens (as soon as he's running for the GOP nod, he'll ditch his stance on gay rights).

^ i mean, to be honest, i'm pretty sure there's someone out there better than romney you can get behind.

[Edited on March 23, 2009 at 1:22 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2009 1:21:36 AM

Quote :

"where clearly if someone i like says something, i clearly have to hold that same belief"

No, it just seems strange to support someone so obviously hostile to what would apparently be, oh, I don't know, an issue of importance to some.

But hey - maybe things like civil liberties don't really rank up there as far as "priorities" for some.

Quote :

"and no, there's no way whatsoever he said that specifically to get some cred with the people who do believe that about gitmo"

And the fact that his principles are so utterly malleable to the circumstances is not reason enough for concern?

Um, okay.

[Edited on March 23, 2009 at 1:40 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2009 1:37:41 AM

Quote :

"^ i mean, to be honest, i'm pretty sure there's someone out there better than romney you can get behind."

not many that are both Rich AND Experienced enough to mount a serious independent candidacy

Quote :

"maybe things like civil liberties don't really rank up there as far as "priorities" for some."

saying that i don't care about civil liberties because i'm not calling for the closing of Gitmo is like saying i don't like breakfast because i don't like pancakes

Quote :

"And the fact that his principles are so utterly malleable to the circumstances is not reason enough for concern?"

lol, remind me again which honest politician we're going to have on the ballot in 2012

remind me again who is going to get the "Integrity" votes

3/23/2009 3:41:51 AM

Quote :

"saying that i don't care about civil liberties because i'm not calling for the closing of Gitmo is like saying i don't like breakfast because i don't like pancakes"

Romney wasn't exactly the roaring advocate of civil liberties protections, either. His comments on Gitmo simply indicated how cavalier he was with the issue.

So, again - perhaps civil liberties just aren't a priority for some people. Or you just don't know what you're talking about. Either one is entirely plausible.

Quote :

"lol, remind me again which honest politician we're going to have on the ballot in 2012 remind me again who is going to get the "Integrity" votes"

Look, you're so concerned about lining yourself up behind a "good" candidate, but obviously whatever Romney says is fairly plastic to circumstances (unlike his hair). So, what exactly are you lining up to support, save for what he's saying right this moment?

(PS, he flip-flopped on abortion too. GG Romney!)

3/23/2009 11:05:49 AM

Quote :

"not many that are both Rich AND Experienced enough to mount a serious independent candidacy"

Bloomberg?

He doesn't have the record of going back on so many things, either.



and what makes you think he'd run as an independent? he's got that GOP label attached pretty firmly. once you've been in the national spotlight as a republican/democrat, it's pretty hard to lose the label. i can't see any sizable population thinking of Mitt Romney as an Independent or an Outsider.

[Edited on March 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2009 6:37:31 PM

Quote :

"2. Haley Barbour: The governor of Mississippi is the biggest -- and most influential -- behind the scenes player in the party. Barbour will not only deliver the Republican response tomorrow to President Obama's weekly address but also is poised to chair the Republican Governors Association in 2010 when 36 governors races present an opportunity for the GOP to begin their long climb back to majority status. (Previous ranking: 4)"

Meanwhile, back in Mississippi, Barbour vetoes a bill prohibiting eminent domain transfers to private parties.

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/barbour_will_veto_eminent_domain_bill_032309/

Yeah, this is totally the guy you want representing the face of the Republican Party.

3/23/2009 8:45:11 PM